The Daily Detour

A (tragic) Christmas Story

My apologies for the delays in getting more regular posts up here at TDD. The holiday festivities have compounded what has become an increasingly busy schedule these days.

I wanted to share a tragically all-too-frequent experience that I had on Christmas Eve. Jean and I took our kids downtown here in Indianapolis to attend a Christmas Eve with our extended family. It was a combined service between the Indy Metro Church and the City Community Church held at the historic Athenaeum theater. Nathan LaGrange, one of the pastors from City Community, gave an excellent message on the importance of promoting Christ over ourselves. (I've linked to some of Nathan's stuff in the past, from back when he was still at Lakeview Church.) It was a great service.

After the service, we all drove over to Brother Doug and Natalie's house for an evening of great food, going caroling, delivering totes of food to some of their neighbors in that lower income neighborhood, and rounding off the evening with an impromptu talent show from Caleb, Andrew, and their cousins, Hanna and Ella. In so many ways it was the perfect Christmas Eve.

And yet, it wasn't for all of us. For in the midst of the time together, there was a knock at the front door. A young boy I'll call Ryan was standing out on the porch in the cold. We invited him in, and then Doug talked to him and found that his father, in a fit of drunkenness, choked the boy, beat him up, and kicked him out of the house. On Christmas Eve of all times...

We gave Ryan some food, and then Doug went out with him to try to find his grandmother--to no avail, as we found out later when they returned. Apparently, they also went to three of the local bars looking for his mother and didn't find her either. So, as has so often been the case over the years at Crane gatherings, we simply adopted Ryan into the family for the evening.

The gravity of Ryan's situation struck me, especially as I was sitting watching all of the kids singing and dancing to the Christmas carols. I couldn't help but think, "This is what Christmas is supposed to be like!" And then I'd glance over at Ryan, sitting quietly on the couch, and realize that "peace on earth, goodwill toward men" is a pleasant, if not-always-realistic, ideal. Sadly, the real world is not something out of a Norman Rockwell painting. The thought actually brought tears to my eyes.

The tendency when witnessing such tragedy is to develop a growing cynicism, as if the ideal is not possible, and therefore, should not be pursued. And yet, I was heartened to see Doug and Natalie do what they have so often done, provide a safe haven for those in need. I was also glad to see that Ryan knew that there was a place to go. And I was happy that we were able to be there to help him in a moment of real crisis.

The events of this year's Christmas Eve served as a good reminder of how we need to be ever-vigilant for opportunities to reach out to the "Ryan's" in our world. Not every Christmas is the kind of "silent night, holy night" that we sing about in Christmas carols. And yet, it is through Jesus Christ that we can offer an oasis and genuine hope for those people whose holiday experiences may not mirror our own. That is, after all, what Christmas is truly all about! A belated Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year to all. 

UPDATE: I meant to share the rest of the story of what happened to Ryan. After we left, Doug and he went over to his grandmother's house to leave a note. The police showed up and talked to them. Ryan told them what had happened, and that he didn't want to go back to his house. So, they took him with them and put him some protective custody arrangement for the time being. None of ust heard what happened after that. So, if you're inclined to pray, you might think about Ryan and his situation and pray for him.

Tis' the season for "Reason's Greetings"

Last Christmas, a number of related atheist groups made international headlines with an orchestrated campaign that ran ads on billboards and buses running in cities like London, Chicago, Washington D.C., and even here in Indiana. It began what is apparently becoming an annual tradition.

There is now an additional campaign taking place in certain cities across the country. Slogans like "Heathen's Greetings" and "Yes, Virginia, there is no God." are finding their way onto billboards, sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

I happpened to run across this very interesting transcript of an interview between Laura Ingraham and Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the co-presidents of the organization. Ms. Ingraham was guest-hosting Bill O'Reilly's show. I did not see the actual interview (because my computer is starting to walk down the green mile) but reading the interview raises some issues to light that are worth considering.

In general, I don't have a huge problem with self-described "freethinkers" buying ads of this nature. I don't necessarily agree with their premise, but I do wholeheartedly believe that the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution extends to all citizens of the United States, especially those with whom I may disagree. That is what makes the governing system in our republic so unique and enviable, is that we have the right to speak up. (And ironically, as I've pointed out here before, that even includes those who bash our Founding Fathers--the ones who ensured that right to speak up.) Such is the essential nature of this wonderful country of ours, and that is a freedom that should be vigilantly protected.

My only real issue with these kinds of efforts by the skeptic community is that they seem more than a bit antagonistic toward those who don't share their beliefs. And I don't always understand why that needs to be the case. It seems to me that there can be (and should be) room for all of us at the table.

Perhaps it's because in many ways the non-religious among us feel as though they have been hurt, offended, or even attacked by the religious devotees. I don't know. But it is interesting to see the reaction by many skeptics toward what they see as the dogmatic nature of Christianity while simultaneously turning a blind eye to their own dogma--dogma about a different set of beliefs, but dogma nonetheless. Isn't the goal to try to be less dogmatic, while still leaving room to hold firmly to those convictions that we believe in? For the Christian, it separates what I call the "non-negotiable" beliefs from the "negotiable" beliefs. And the non-negotiables represent what C.S. Lewis termed "mere" Christianity.

Regardless, I find this particular exchange beneficial in a couple of immediate ways. First of all, it proves very illuminating concerning many of the feelings about, and arguments against, Christianity that many skeptics have. For those Christians who are serious about trying to reach out to their neighbors, the comments made by Ms. Gaylor are essentially what many (if not most) skeptics feel about Christians and Christianity (TDD skeptic readers: please do weigh in here and correct me if this is not the case). The arguments presented by skeptics are not merely theoretical attempts to stir the pot. Real, rational people have staked their lives and future on their sincere beliefs about these things. And they should be respected for that.

Secondly, the exchange here, and the corresponding ad campaign that it highlights, provide a great opportunity to have substantive dialogue about these kinds of issues. (I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Ms. Ingraham or Ms. Gaylor were engaged in that effort, though perhaps the attempt was being made by one side or the other at times.) But we all can certainly seek to explore and understand our differences of belief. And we can thoughtfully engage in the exchange of ideas as we pursue what we all are seeking--the Truth. That is, after all, the reason for any season.

UPDATE: Stephanie Simon over at The Wall Street Journal wrote this interesting article about last year's atheist ad campaign.

The grade is in...

During his Christmas special with Oprah, President Obama gave himself a "good, solid B-plus" for his first eleven months in office. I'm not seeing it myself, because after all, that is just a shade below an A-minus, and I don't think an objective assessment of Obama's first year in office would consider him an almost-A level student. That seems decidedly optimistic. (But, that's just me, and our differences of worldview would clearly affect why Obama might be so generous in his evaluation of himself.)

Unfortunately, for Obama, his assessment of himself is subordinate to the assessment of his constituents. It's our grade that ultimately matters. The first part of his grade will come during the mid-term elections in 2010, followed up by the next presidential election in 2012.

What about you? How would you grade Obama for his first year in office?

UPDATE: It was reported today, "ABC News/Washington Post poll: Obama's approval rating hits new low". Apparently, the American people aren't as enamored with Obama's performance as he is.

Obama trying to walk the fine line between war and peace

It was interesting as Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last week that the event was often reported by various media sources as "the wartime president" accepting his peace prize. Such was/is the dichotomy that surrounds Obama. And as he gave his acceptance speech, the difficult tightrope he is walking is not lost on anyone, most especially his liberal base. One other writer termed his accept of the Nobel prize as the "Jekyll and Hyde" speech.

There are two issues surrounding Obama's Nobel Prize, received in the midst of his seemingly contradictory foreign affairs. 1. Should Obama have received the prize in the first place?, and 2. How is his reception of the prize reconciled in the midst of his decision to send more troops to the war in Afghanistan?

Concerning the former issue, even the Dalai Lama, himself a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his peaceful opposition to the Chinese rule in Tibet, candidly understated that President Obama's receiving the prize was "a little early". In fact, that is the notion that has plagued Obama since word came out in October that he had won the once-prestigious prize. People were trying to figure out where Obama fit within the pantheon of peace activists like Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and His holiness the Dalai Lama. (It reminds me of Christian Laettner's presence on the1992 Olympic Dream Team with Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson. I've always contended that Laettner was there to serve as the bellhop for the big boys. :)

I would agree with this assessment, that Obama's receiving the prize was inappropriate and undermined the significance of the award. Even the Nobel selection committee tried to justify their decision by admitting that it was given not based on Obama's securing peace but what he will presumably do. And as Obama himself acknowledged in his speech, the award was not for what he has actually accomplished, but what he "aspires" to do. And if he doesn't do it? (This whole event reveals the cult of personality that surrounds Obama and begs so many questions and problems--Namely, how do we measure whether or not he is successful in those aspirations? And, should we get credit for what we aspire to do, even if we don't actually carry it out--like school grades? If the aspiration for peace is the new criteria for the Noble Prize, perhaps every beauty pageant contestant should be considered for the award.)

Furthermore, Obama is making his case for what he calls the "just war" in Afghanistan. Others would disagree. What do you think? Is Afghanistan a just war? Is there any such thing? I believe there is, given the nature of those who use evil to achieve their ends. (But then again, I'm not up for the Nobel Peace prize.) 

UPDATE: This insightful article by Bonnie Erbe over at Politics Daily talks about the discontent of the Norwegians over having given Obama the prize. But more than that, she describes how he has come to embody the consumate politician. As she writes, "If only the Nobel Committee and the American voting public had dug a bit deeper before they endorsed Obama, they might not have been so surprised when he morphed into an unexpected type of president. The New York Times reported in February 2008 that Obama had a history of stretching his accomplishments and playing to his audience of the moment. It would have been easy to see what was coming if only voters had paid more attention to his record as a twister of facts and prince of prevarication." This tendency among politicians is hardly new. The question is, "What are we going to do about it?"

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

As Ronald Reagan famously said, these are the nine most terrifying words in the English language. Truer words were never spoken.

The AP just reported today,

"The Treasury Department is acknowledging for the first time that it lost $61 billion on two key programs designed to stabilize the economy after the largest financial crisis in decades."

So, apparently after all of the assurances that we needed bailouts and stimulus funding--and now, even more stimulus funding--to restart the economy, the government has fessed up to the fact that they have lost over $61 billion!?! (That's billion with a "b".)

This is what makes it difficult to feel confident when Obama & Co. essentially suggest to the American people, "Trust us, we know what's best for you and the country." Conservatives have been trying to sound this warning against that liberal mentality for some time. And to be fair, President Bush was no fiscal conservative, so the more courageous conservatives among us were warning the country back then. But the Obama presidency has taken spending to a whole other level.

Misspending (and in this case, losing $61 billion) is the luxury of those who are using other people's money. This is one of the many reasons why it is better to let people keep more of their money in their own pockets. The more the government overreaches, the greater the possibility for abuse. But then again, I guess we can at least find some comfort in the fact that they have enough integrity to admit their mistakes. :)

Copenhagen conference goes up in smoke

The big talk this week (other than Tiger Woods) centers on the 2-week long conference on global warming happening in Copenhagen, Denmark. This year's event has garnered considerable attention given the recent exposure of fraud on the climate change issue.

As the UK Telegraph points out, however, it seems the leading proponents of the evils of global warming are doing their fair share of contributing to the crisis that they are warning all of us about. The Copenhagen Conference seems to be going up in smoke--carbon dioxide, that is. The Telegraph reports that there have been 140 private planes and 1,200 limos being used by those who have come to Copenhagen.

Perhaps some may consider this little factoid an irrelevant point of emphasis. But these are the kinds of things that seriously undermine the credibililty of the Goracle and the rest of the "Chicken Littles" in the environmentalist movement. When their carbon footprint for one event--an event intended to reduce carbon footprints no less--is large enough to overshadow the energy usage of a small country, something is amiss. When those who are attempting to lead the movement are unwilling to follow their own admonitions, what does that say to the rest of us? Either those folks are okay with their hypocrisy, or perhaps they know something the rest of us don't about the true reality of the "global warming crisis." Perhaps it's not such a crisis after all. Otherwise, wouldn't those who care the most about this issue being making every effort to combat it? (Why not fly commercial and use public transportation like the rest of the world in order order to reduce the carbon footprint?)

UPDATE: There proves to be a record-breaking carbon footprint that the climate changers have left in Copenhagen after 2 weeks of deliberations about our impending doom. It was to be expected, but as this post attempted to emphasize, the whole affair smacks of "Do as we say, not as we do." Even the liberals are forced to admit that that is ALOT of carbon emissions, but are figuring out ways to justify this unavoidable dilemma. (So as to ease the conscience, and push the movement forward? Perhaps...)

What happens to the terrorists?

A while ago I introduced a new category detailing the bumber sticker battles taking place on our highways everyday. It's been some time since I've shared a bumper sticker, but this one caught my attention on Wednesday:

God's job is to forgive terrorists. Our job is to arrange the meeting.

This bumper sticker message begs the question, "Should God forgive unrepentant terrorists?" 

Obama's eulogy at West Point

Last night at our United States Military Academy at West Point, President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech outlining his strategy in Afghanistan. As you may or may not know, General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. military forces in that war, came to Obama over three months ago requesting that additional troops be sent to help in a move similar to the surge which proved successful in Iraq. Obama's speech was his answer--an answer that has many disappointed on both sides of the aisle. For many of the young soldiers sitting in the audience, it was seen as a eulogy suggesting that the real chance for victory in Afghanistan is dead.

Given that Obama has agreed to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal has renewed his vow to take the fight to the Taliban. And because we have such noble men and women in harm's way (with more to come over the next 18 months), we should wholeheartedly support their efforts.

The challenge for someone in Obama's position (that is, someone with a far left base, combined with a country that is middle-right) is how to please everyone. As any leader knows the difficult decisions forged in the crucible of real-life make this desire all but impossible. And yet, Obama is giving it his best effort--trying to please the right by providing a quasi-surge in Afghanistan, while appealing to the left by offering an actual pull-out date of July 2011 (though it will be interesting to see how this date is adjusted as the realities of war--and the 2012 presidential election--affected the President). His is not in an enviable position by any means, but that is the nature of the job as Commander-in-Chief.

It does cause one to wonder, does Obama really want us to win? On the plus side, he did finally agree to send more troops (though not as many as McChrystal said he needed). So, there is the perceived desire to win, or at least, pass the job off to the Afghanis. On the negative side, by setting a pullout date, has he not telegraphed the gameplan? For the Taliban, what's to keep them from simply holding out until the Americans have left and then taking over again, just as they had before we arrived? Nothing of real consequence. (Yes, the Afghan military does have a significant role to play in their own protection, but they will never provide the necessary counter-measure to tyranny that the U.S. military power embodies.)

And so, it raises some significant questions: Are we in it to win it, or not? Why pull out in 18 months? Why not longer? Or sooner? And more significantly, if we are going to pull out, then why send 30,000 of America's best men and women to potentially suffer and die in battle if we are not there to win in the end?

Where war is concerned, I would echo President Reagan's terse response to the question about his strategy in the Cold War: "We win. They lose." In my heart, I truly wish war was not necessary, but the presence of evil in the world necessitates a response--even a response of war at times. And until we achieve that utopia that all of our liberal friends dream of, meeting violence with violence is sometimes necessary (as I've alluded to before). To go in half-heartedly suggests that it is better to have not gone in at all. Our brave men and women (and those we are trying to free and protect) desire so much more than that. The question is whether or not Obama's new strategy will give it to them.

UPDATE: Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates correctly pointed out that failure in Afghanistan will have severe consequences for the United States.